On 23/05/2013 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:



cos we were importing half our food

Not during the war itself.

There would have been mass starvation if the U boats had stopped the
food and fuel.
Even with the imports it was hard and the rationing was getting worse.

There was also plenty of OIL based fuel, it was all being used for the
war effort. Its quite hard to run planes on coal.

The Nazis might have won if they had delayed the war by 6 months and
doubled the u boat fleet.

On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.


Tell me where those places are, and what their populations densities are.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK. 24x7
hard grind.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 23/05/13 07:57, harry wrote:
The other factor of course being global warming which will disprupt
agriculture however it manifests itself.
what global warming, harry?

the global warming that stopped 17 years ago?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 23/05/2013 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.


Tell me where those places are, and what their populations densities are.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK. 24x7
hard grind.



Is that enough?
They can't manage on that little in Africa.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 23, 3:11 am, "Simon Brown" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
...









On 22/05/13 22:54, Simon Brown wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 22/05/13 22:02, Simon Brown wrote:

"
Yes, you could certainly return to what was done in WW2.

you have your head in the clouds mate.

WE didnt 'do without fossil fuels' in WWII,

Not much fossil fuel was used in the agriculture being discussed.
No? what did the tractors run on?? and why was the battle of the
atlantic
so vital?

To move the vast amount of stuff the military was using.

cos we were importing half our food

Not during the war itself.

and most of our fuel from america.
And how doi te food get from farm and portt to teh cities?
Hint: it wasnt on hors drawn wagins or canal nboats.

Mostly by rail.

And we have since worked out how to use biodiesel in ag machines too.

we did with a lot less fossil fuel, and it was very tough.

But nothing like the mass starvation that he claimed is guaranteed.
it is guranteed.

No.

The last time we were fully renewable the population was less than 4
million. Its now 70 million.

And plenty of places manage to feed themselves with much
higher population numbers than that with very little fossil
fuel or chemicals used in their agriculture in say the last
couple of decades.

there is not the land area in the uk to grow even one percent of the
biofuel we would need.

That is just plain wrong with the agriculture that
he claimed would collapse.

It is in fact entirely correvct.

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.

WE had serious reserves of coal in those days, too.

And now have coal seam gas instead.
that isn't not having fossil fuel is it?

Yes, but that coal is going to last for hundreds of years.

we have maybe 20 years of gas

It is going to last a lot longer than that.

and then nada.

That is just plain wrong too.

nuclear or megadeath.

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.

The other factor of course being global warming which
will disprupt agriculture however it manifests itself.

With relatively cold places like Britain, it may well be
a good thing for agriculture if it actually does produce
some warming.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/05/2013 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:



cos we were importing half our food

Not during the war itself.

There would have been mass starvation if the U boats had stopped the food
and fuel.

No, just a lot more effort would have
gone into growing more food in Britain.

Even with the imports it was hard

There is quite a bit of evidence that the British
actually ate rather better during WW2 than they
had done before that, basically because they
were forced to eat more locally grown veg etc.

and the rationing was getting worse.

That was certainly a nuisance and very irritating,
but no one starved to death because of it.

There was also plenty of OIL based fuel, it was all being used for the war
effort. Its quite hard to run planes on coal.

Yes, we were discussing what was used in agriculture.

The Nazis might have won if they had delayed the war by 6 months and
doubled the u boat fleet.

They might have won if they had driven through to the
Balkan oil fields instead of concentrating on Moscow.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.

Tell me where those places are,

China, much of Africa, much of SE Asia, much
of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh etc.

and what their populations densities are.

Much higher than in Britain.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and clothe
them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK.

Plenty managed on much less than
that before the industrial revolution.

24x7 hard grind.

Agriculture before the industrial revolution was nothing like that.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/05/2013 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.


Tell me where those places are, and what their populations densities are.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK. 24x7
hard grind.



Is that enough?
They can't manage on that little in Africa.

Plenty of them do.

On 23/05/13 10:56, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/05/2013 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.


Tell me where those places are, and what their populations densities
are.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK. 24x7
hard grind.



Is that enough?
They can't manage on that little in Africa.
we have more water, largely



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 23/05/13 12:01, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.

Tell me where those places are,

China, much of Africa, much of SE Asia, much
of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh etc.

and what their populations densities are.

Much higher than in Britain.

I thik you should checkl that out, and china india much of SE asia use
TONNES of fossil fuel.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK.

Plenty managed on much less than
that before the industrial revolution.

No, they did not.

24x7 hard grind.

Agriculture before the industrial revolution was nothing like that.
Since every statement you make is essentially false, based on no
evidence whatsoever, I think its time to plonk you.

It certainly isn't worth trying to educate you.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 23/05/13 12:03, Simon Brown wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/05/2013 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.


Tell me where those places are, and what their populations densities
are.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK. 24x7
hard grind.



Is that enough?
They can't manage on that little in Africa.

Plenty of them do.
Only with helicopter air dropped food.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Simon Brown wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
The other factor of course being global warming which
will disprupt agriculture however it manifests itself.

With relatively cold places like Britain, it may well be
a good thing for agriculture if it actually does produce
some warming.

The global warming theory says that while the average global temperature
will increase, local effects will often differ greatly. For instance, if
the Arctic ice melts enough, the North Atlantic conveyor current may
well slow down or stop, reducing the amount of heat it brings North.
This will give the UK colder winters and, probably, wetter Summers. Or
maybe, hotter, drier Summers. The increase in CO2 is likely to have more
effect on crop growth than any temperature changes here.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 23/05/13 14:33, John Williamson wrote:
Simon Brown wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
The other factor of course being global warming which will
disprupt agriculture however it manifests itself.

With relatively cold places like Britain, it may well be a good
thing for agriculture if it actually does produce some warming.

The global warming theory says that while the average global
temperature will increase, local effects will often differ greatly.
For instance, if the Arctic ice melts enough, the North Atlantic
conveyor current may well slow down or stop, reducing the amount of
heat it brings North. This will give the UK colder winters and,
probably, wetter Summers.

And cause the arctic ice to reform...that's the bit they always leave
off, isn't it?

Or maybe, hotter, drier Summers. The
increase in CO2 is likely to have more effect on crop growth than any
temperature changes here.

Anything is possible of course if you cherry pick ideas that suit a
preconceived agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On May 23, 11:49*am, "Simon Brown" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On May 23, 3:11 am, "Simon Brown" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
...

On 22/05/13 22:54, Simon Brown wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 22/05/13 22:02, Simon Brown wrote:

"
Yes, you could certainly return to what was done in WW2.

you have your head in the clouds mate.

WE didnt 'do without fossil fuels' in WWII,

Not much fossil fuel was used in the agriculture being discussed.
No? what did the tractors run on?? and why was the battle of the
atlantic
so vital?

To move the vast amount of stuff the military was using.

cos we were importing half our food

Not during the war itself.

and most of our fuel from america.
And how doi te food get from farm and portt to teh cities?
Hint: it wasnt on hors drawn wagins or canal nboats.

Mostly by rail.

And we have since worked out how to use biodiesel in ag machines too.

we did with a lot less fossil fuel, and it was very tough.

But nothing like the mass starvation that he claimed is guaranteed.
it is guranteed.

No.

The last time we were fully renewable the population was less than 4
million. Its now 70 million.

And plenty of places manage to feed themselves with much
higher population numbers than that with very little fossil
fuel or chemicals used in their agriculture in say the last
couple of decades.

there is not the land area in the uk to grow even one percent of the
biofuel we would need.

That is just plain wrong with the agriculture that
he claimed would collapse.

It is in fact entirely correvct.

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.

WE had serious reserves of coal in those days, too.

And now have coal seam gas instead.
that isn't not having fossil fuel is it?

Yes, but that coal is going to last for hundreds of years.

we have maybe 20 years of gas

It is going to last a lot longer than that.

and then nada.

That is just plain wrong too.

nuclear or megadeath.

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.
The other factor of course being global warming which
will disprupt agriculture however it manifests itself.

With relatively cold places like Britain, it may well be
a good thing for agriculture if it actually does produce
some warming.

What part of "global" don't you understand?
We may actually end up colder in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdow...ne_circulation

On May 23, 12:01*pm, "Simon Brown" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...

On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.
Tell me where those places are,

China, much of Africa, much of SE Asia, much
of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh etc.

and what their populations densities are.

Much higher than in Britain.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and clothe
them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK.

Plenty managed on much less than
that before the industrial revolution.

24x7 hard grind.

Agriculture before the industrial revolution was nothing like that.
You are in Lala land.
If you want to know what agriculture was like before machines was like
you only have to visit a third world country. Peasants have a truly
miserble existence.
Backbreaking toil.

On May 23, 3:08*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 23/05/13 14:33, John Williamson wrote: Simon Brown wrote:

*
* "harry" wrote in message
* The other factor of course being global warming which will
* disprupt agriculture however it manifests itself.
*
* With relatively cold places like Britain, it may well be a good
* thing for agriculture if it actually does produce some warming.
*
* The global warming theory says that while the average global
* temperature will increase, local effects will often differ greatly.
* For instance, if the Arctic ice melts enough, the North Atlantic
* conveyor current may well slow down or stop, reducing the amount of
* heat it brings North. This will give the UK colder winters and,
* probably, wetter Summers.

And cause the arctic ice to reform...that's the bit they always leave
off, isn't it?

Or maybe, hotter, drier Summers. The
* increase in CO2 is likely to have more effect on crop growth than any
* temperature changes here.
*
Anything is possible of course if you cherry pick ideas that suit a
preconceived agenda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s

Hah. You need to read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_anoxic_event

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/13 12:01, Simon Brown wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.

Tell me where those places are,

China, much of Africa, much of SE Asia, much
of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh etc.

and what their populations densities are.

Much higher than in Britain.

I thik you should checkl that out,

No need with Bangladesh alone.

and china india much of SE asia use TONNES of fossil fuel.

Not for subsistence agriculture they dont.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK.

Plenty managed on much less than
that before the industrial revolution.

No, they did not.

Yes they did. It was nothing like that in Ireland for example.

24x7 hard grind.

Agriculture before the industrial revolution was nothing like that.

Since every statement you make is essentially false,

Easy to claim...

based on no evidence whatsoever,

We all swooned at the wealth of evidence you provided.

I think its time to plonk you.

Fat lot of good that will do you.

It certainly isn't worth trying to educate you.

Fools like you in spades.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 23/05/13 12:03, Simon Brown wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/05/2013 10:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:


Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.


Tell me where those places are, and what their populations densities
are.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK. 24x7
hard grind.



Is that enough?
They can't manage on that little in Africa.

Plenty of them do.

Only with helicopter air dropped food.

Bull****.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Simon Brown wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
The other factor of course being global warming which
will disprupt agriculture however it manifests itself.

With relatively cold places like Britain, it may well be
a good thing for agriculture if it actually does produce
some warming.

The global warming theory says that while the average global temperature
will increase, local effects will often differ greatly. For instance, if
the Arctic ice melts enough, the North Atlantic conveyor current may well
slow down or stop, reducing the amount of heat it brings North. This will
give the UK colder winters and, probably, wetter Summers. Or maybe,
hotter, drier Summers.

If it does produce hotter drier summers, that would likely be a
good thing for agriculture given that it's currently on the cool
side compare with some other more productive agricultural areas.

The increase in CO2 is likely to have more
effect on crop growth than any temperature changes here.

Sure, but that is not the global warming that we were discussing.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 23, 11:49 am, "Simon Brown" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On May 23, 3:11 am, "Simon Brown" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
...

On 22/05/13 22:54, Simon Brown wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 22/05/13 22:02, Simon Brown wrote:

"
Yes, you could certainly return to what was done in WW2.

you have your head in the clouds mate.

WE didnt 'do without fossil fuels' in WWII,

Not much fossil fuel was used in the agriculture being discussed.
No? what did the tractors run on?? and why was the battle of the
atlantic
so vital?

To move the vast amount of stuff the military was using.

cos we were importing half our food

Not during the war itself.

and most of our fuel from america.
And how doi te food get from farm and portt to teh cities?
Hint: it wasnt on hors drawn wagins or canal nboats.

Mostly by rail.

And we have since worked out how to use biodiesel in ag machines
too.

we did with a lot less fossil fuel, and it was very tough.

But nothing like the mass starvation that he claimed is guaranteed.
it is guranteed.

No.

The last time we were fully renewable the population was less than 4
million. Its now 70 million.

And plenty of places manage to feed themselves with much
higher population numbers than that with very little fossil
fuel or chemicals used in their agriculture in say the last
couple of decades.

there is not the land area in the uk to grow even one percent of
the
biofuel we would need.

That is just plain wrong with the agriculture that
he claimed would collapse.

It is in fact entirely correvct.

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.

WE had serious reserves of coal in those days, too.

And now have coal seam gas instead.
that isn't not having fossil fuel is it?

Yes, but that coal is going to last for hundreds of years.

we have maybe 20 years of gas

It is going to last a lot longer than that.

and then nada.

That is just plain wrong too.

nuclear or megadeath.

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.
The other factor of course being global warming which
will disprupt agriculture however it manifests itself.

With relatively cold places like Britain, it may well be
a good thing for agriculture if it actually does produce
some warming.

What part of "global" don't you understand?

That was a comment on your 'will disprupt
agriculture however it manifests itself'

It will not necessarily disrupt the agriculture
that benefits from the change that it produces.

We may actually end up colder in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdow...ne_circulation

But there will be some places that are currently
colder than is ideal for agriculture that will benefit
from global warming, if it actually does happen
and the agriculture there will not be disrupted.

Given that we already move vast amounts of
agricultural produce from where it grows best
to where its consumed, often right around the
world, it is very unlikely indeed that we will in
fact see massive disruption of agriculture, let
alone mass starvation and famine.

Particularly as it is completely routine to use
nuke powered ships to move the agricultural
produce if we need to because fossil fuels
have become too expensive as they run out.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 23, 12:01 pm, "Simon Brown" wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in
...

On 23/05/13 03:11, Simon Brown wrote:

Now explain why it did not happen in all those
places that used very little fossil fuel or chemicals
in their agriculture in the last couple of decades.
Tell me where those places are,

China, much of Africa, much of SE Asia, much
of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh etc.

and what their populations densities are.

Much higher than in Britain.

10 acres for a family is what it takes to feed them house them and
clothe
them and feed them and keep them warm in winter. in the UK.

Plenty managed on much less than
that before the industrial revolution.

24x7 hard grind.

Agriculture before the industrial revolution was nothing like that.

You are in Lala land.

We'll see...

If you want to know what agriculture was like before machines
was like you only have to visit a third world country.

You don't even need to visit those now, its
there on youtube and in docos for all to see.

Peasants have a truly miserble existence.

But we have not seen mass starvation or even famine
anywhere now except where the place has degenerated
into the most obscene levels of civil war or civil chaos or
they have actually been stupid enough to let some fool
like Kim Jong Il rule the roost.

Backbreaking toil.

Didn't happen in Britain in WW2.